To longtime political observers, it was a touching moment in the unlikeliest of places: The state Capitol in the outpost town of Pierre, South Dakota.

It’s no secret that the state’s powerful business interests dispatch lobbyists to the Capitol each year when the Legislature’s in session. With a budget that tops out at more than $4.5 billion a year, there’s a lot of money at stake.

Now it’s true, those business groups are there to capture as much money as they can and to craft laws that will benefit them and, if they can really do it right, harm their competitors.

With so much at stake, it’s no surprise that violence often erupts among rival bands of lobbyists. Just last year, a lobbyist for a prominent insurance company disappeared the night before a hearing on an important bill. His body turned up weeks later, encased in ice on the Missouri River, a knife in his back.

And who can forget the massacre of ’08, when a group of credit union lobbyists was found machine-gunned at an after-hours bar in Fort Pierre? No arrests were ever made, but suspicion has always fallen on a rival gang of banking lobbyists.

These business groups are often maligned by outsiders for their self-interest. Which is why it was so remarkable when they recently came together in a show of unity. For a fleeting moment, they put aside their relentless pursuit of money and legal carve-outs to stop a bill that, they warned, would needlessly cost taxpayer money.

The bill in question was sponsored by a former judge turned state senator, Art Rusch. Rusch decided that governments in South Dakota shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate confidential settlements when they get sued. He pointed to Sioux Falls as a glaring example of what can happen, citing the city’s attempt to hide the details of the flawed paneling at the Denny Sanford Premier Center through a confidential settlement.

Other states, Rusch argued, don’t allow governments to negotiate confidential settlements. After all, it’s taxpayer money and the taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent. He cited an example in Minnesota where it came to light in January that the state had paid out more than $700,000 to settle various sexual harassment claims.

Now, it surprised no one that local governments opposed the bill. They don’t want it known, for example, if a drunken deputy accidently pistol whips somebody or a lecherous county commissioner accidently puts his hand down a young lady’s skirt. It’s perfectly understandable why they want the ability to negotiate confidential settlements.

Left on their own, the local governments might not have been able to stop Rusch’s bill, which passed in the state Senate. Lucky for them, they got help from big business in a remarkable show of unity: The banking association, the insurance alliance, the utilities, the retailers, the trial lawyers, the contractors association.

They had a dire warning for lawmakers: Removing the ability for local governments to negotiate confidential settlements would drive up litigation costs. The taxpayers would be the big losers, they predicted. Never mind that other states and the federal government don’t allow the practice. In South Dakota, it would be disastrous.

They also argued that local government officials need the flexibility to make secret pacts with businesses. If voters don’t like it, they could vote officials out of office.

That argument, however, appeared to fall on its face when Rusch said: “How does the public know what the elected officials are doing if those settlement agreements are kept confidential?”

Lucky for them, some lawmakers are willing to overlook logic when it trumps self-interest. The business groups had friends on the House committee. Doug Barthel, the former Sioux Falls police chief, works for the Sanford Health juggernaut. Mike Diedrich, a vice president at Regional Health, is a former city attorney for Rapid City. David Lust’s law partner is the counsel for the Associated General Contractors of South Dakota, which lobbied against the bill. Charles Turbiville moonlights as mayor of Deadwood.

Indeed, during debate, Turbiville said that South Dakota shouldn’t equate itself with Sioux Falls – referring to the Premier Center scandal – Minnesota – referring to the sexual harassment payouts – or Hollywood, a reference to the numerous sexual harassment allegations.

“Let’s leave this as a business decision between those people involved,” he said, without a hint of irony that one of those parties is always the taxpayers.

No doubt there will be another effort in the next legislative session to bar governments from confidential settlements. There are too many who view it as a vehicle for corruption. But it will again be opposed by big business and big government.